|
(Awesome post. A post I had been collecting links for to write myself. But now I don't need to!
In short, there's an obvious nation-wide effort by the Republican party to use ACORN to suppress the vote of minority, first-time, and Democratic voters. It's ugly.
We beat them here in Montana. (And let's hope criminal charges are filed; this kind of act should have consequences.) But work needs to be done elsewhere. - promoted by Jay Stevens)
Here in Montana, as most of you know, the Montana Democratic Party lawsuit against Jacob Eaton et al. was dismissed without prejudice last week based on "Plaintiffs' Rule 41(a)(1) Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice."
This is a voluntary dismissal by the plaintiffs prior to the filing of an answer by defendants or a summary judgment order of the court. As stated in the Notice, Plaintiffs believe the assurances necessary to protect Montana's electorate have been established in this case. While Plaintiffs believe that vigilance must be maintained to protect the upcoming vote, this battle has been won in favor of the Plaintiffs and the voters of Montana. Such being the case, Plaintiffs respectfully dismiss their claims in this litigation without prejudice to re-file, a necessity Plaintiffs hope will not arise.
Vigilance is key of course, and the term "without prejudice" means Plaintiffs can re-file this suit or any other suit based on future developments. |
| As you know, McCain/Palin ads, robocalls, and McCain in the last presidential debate are accusing ACORN of "perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy." Obviously I fear the wrong things, as illegal war, genocidal policies, economic collapse orchestrated through policies of greed, and 8 years of documented voter suppression efforts pale in comparison to Mickey Mouse trying to vote. I hear the fabric ripping.
No matter that out of the 28,000 new voters registered by ACORN in NC, only 4 are challenged. No matter that Mickey would have to show ID, a recent utility bill, etc. to vote and, if unable to so produce those documents, would vote provisionally subject to verification (at which time Mickey's vote would be thrown out, unless there is indeed a Mr./Ms. Mickey Mouse in reality). No matter that federal law requires ACORN to turn in all voter registration forms obtained (which they did) while flagging those that are repetitive or suspicious (which they did). Organized efforts to encourage and facilitate US citizens to exercise their constitutional rights and participate in government are obviously a threat to the frail fabric of democracy.
Thus the media frenzy over ACORN, ACORN/Obama and the McCain campaign's relentless flogging.
So, on the one hand there's ACORN and other get out the vote efforts, and on the other there are voter suppression efforts orchestrated by the Republican Party and its operatives over the last 8 years and before in, well, pick a state.
In many states, shenanigans abound. But so do the lawsuits and court actions in response.
In Ohio, the case Brunner v. Ohio Republican Party is in full cry with recent encouraging activity by the US Supreme Court, which vacated a temporary restraining order requiring the Ohio Secretary of State to update the state's voter registration database based on republican challenges to more than 200,000 recently registered voters.
In Michigan, in a federal lawsuit challenging two statewide voter purge programs, the federal district court enjoined the practices. The MI Dept. of State, which administers both driver's license and voter registration records, was enjoined from immediately cancelling the voter registrations of MI voters who obtain driver's licenses in other states instead of issuing the appropriate confirmation of registration notices and following the required voter removal procedures mandated by the NRVA of 1993. According to the Dept's records, over 280,000 voters per year are removed from the rolls in this manner. Also, the state was enjoined from nullifying registrations of newly-registered voters whenever their original voter ID cards are returned by the post office as undeliverable. Detroit elections officials report that nearly 30,000 voters per year in that city alone are removed from the rolls as a result of this state election law, which violates the NVRA and other federal and state laws (NVRA permits voters to remain on the voter rolls for at least 2 federal elections after voter registration cards are returned.) The defendants are required to answer the complaint by October 27.
In Georgia, similar to the MT and Ohio cases, the state is attempting to purge thousands of voters less than 90 days before a federal election, a clear violation of Voting Rights Act and National Voter Registration Act. Take a look at the Georgia Sec. of State's public response to the complaint - perhaps Ms. Handel should rethink this response in light of the S.Ct. order in Brunner?
In Indiana, republicans want to shut down early voting centers in a largely Democratic county on the grounds that they will increase the likelihood of vote fraud, and GOP attorney R. Lawrence Steele suggested that if the satellite sites are closed, the votes already cast there should be discarded. That's right, discarded. The parties are awaiting the judge's decision.
Voter protection lawsuits against state efforts to disenfranchise convicted felons, a.k.a. Jim Crow redux or the subtle war on drugs, are active in several states. And yes, convicted felons continue to be citizens entitled to the exercise of their Constitutional right to vote after they have served their time. In Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Arizona lawsuits are ongoing.
For native Americans, several lawsuits are seeking to disable voter suppression efforts. In Alaska, a 2007 lawsuit to provide effective language assistance to citizens who speak Yup'ik (Bethel region of Alaska) was filed. A preliminary injunction was granted in July in which a federal judge ordered election officials to provide language assistance. Other challenges to discriminatory election practices across Indian country include challenges regarding discriminatory election practices such as: at-large elections; redistricting plans that dilute Indian voting strength; failure to comply with one person, one vote; unfounded allegations of election fraud on Indian reservations; discriminatory voter registration procedures; onerous identification requirements for voting; and the refusal to comply with the preclearance provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Other legal challenges to voter suppression efforts past and pending include: ballot access cases in South Carolina (challenge to "fusion voting" and "sore loser" provisions of state law) and Montana (non-major party ballot eligibility); an absentee ballot case in Ohio (lawsuit for TRO to prohibit county board of elections from blocking same-day registration and voting - 2 different Ohio courts ruled in September that counties cannot deny absentee ballots to newly registered voters); a voting technology case in Ohio (lawsuit against state and local election officials in Cuyahoga County over their change from voting technology that provides voters with notice of ballot errors that will prevent their ballot from being accurately tabulated by voting technology that does not provide such notice - motion for injunction granted and Cuyahoga County selected a system that will provide notice of ballot errors for the November election); and a Texas case seeking to uphold the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act which requires "preclearance," the process in which any voting changes proposed by certain jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting be submitted to the US DoJ or federal court for approval, presently pending before US Supreme Court.
This is not an exhaustive list of voter suppression efforts or lawsuits, nor have all chaotic efforts to suppress the vote been addressed. But at least I can breathe easier knowing that McCain has identified the real threat to the fabric of democracy. Keep stitching, ACORN. |
